For quite a long time, the issue of nuclear weapon development efforts by Iran has been on the political spotlight. This has to be related to the nuclear proliferation Act that was signed after the World War II where the nations of the world agreed that they needed to control the development of and ownership of weapons of mass destruction by different countries. This was in a bid to ensure the security of all the inhabitants of the world, mainly because if all the nations had such weapons and a third world war arose, that would be the end of the planet. Based on this Act, the nations that already had the nuclear weapons such as the US, and Russia were allowed to retain the technology but limited on the number of warheads that they should have. Nations that did not have the technology as yet had to steer away from any attempts to develop such weapons.
Iran has defied this provision (Behring 1). For quite some time, the country has been trying to come up with a nuclear warhead despite the various warnings by the international communities. Based on the strategic placement of Iran in the Middle East and the reality of terrorism, it is apparent that the development of such a weapon in the country would risk the weapon landing in the hands of terrorists, which would be quite a disadvantage. It is for this reason that the Iranian efforts have become a global concern and a political issue. In the recent American presidential polls, the issue featured prominently as the two candidates sought to convince the electorate that they had the best way of handling the situation (Benhorin 1).
It is not only the US that has gotten involved in the Iranian nuclear efforts issue. Governments around the world have been involved in the issue, and as of now, the country has received economic sanctions. As such, unless it complies with the regulations and steers away from the development of any nuclear weapons, there is a high possibility that the country could go into even greater problems.
The current debate is as to whether Iran should be attacked or not (Kahl 1). According to the analysis done by Kahl, the American President, Barack Obama, feels that it is not yet time to attack Iran. It cannot be denied that day after day the country is becoming a threat to the global security. However, before resorting to the military measures, there is still the need to try and apply diplomatic attempts at making the country stop in its pursuit for a nuclear weapon. The argument is that it is time to attack the Iranian infrastructure so that the country can stop going on with the nuclear pursuit issue. Due to this factor the countries have been divided on the issue.
Since no action has been taken against the country apart from the economic sanctions, it is apparent that the issue is still on debate. Of course, there is the possibility that the country could soon come under attack. However, this would only be after all other diplomatic channels have been exhausted with no success. Below is a discussion of this issue in a deeper sense, looking at some of the theoretical arguments that can be employed into the same.
Gauss (1) indicates that liberalism is one of the elements that can be used in addressing such a situation liberalism implies that the people have to be allowed their sense of freedom and allowed to do what they think or feel is best for them and their country. This argument has it that the restrictions on liberty can only come about when there is a justifiable cause, and when all other options have been applied but failed. This is also what can be termed as the just war where at times, peace can only be achieved through an act of war. This theory can be used to analyze the issue of Iran. As it appears, the country has not yet received any military attack. This is because as per the liberal theory, the country has its freedom and this has to be respected. Other avenues have to be looked for which stop the country from going on with the weapons agenda, but which do not compromise on the liberty of the nation. However, if the country does not heed to the warnings and goes on to pursue the nuclear weapons manufacture, and then there would be no option left but for the military intervention to be employed.
Looking at this perspective, it can be said that the liberalism theory has effectively addressed this issue and also explains how it has been handled so far. It categorically states that the nation has to be allowed to make its own decisions without infringing on its liberty. However, if this does not work out, then the nations of the world will have no option than to take an action that affects the liberty of the land.
Realism is also another theory that can be used to look at this issue. According to Miller (2), realism is based on two main aspects; essence and existence. The essence comes before existence but there is no way that existence can be without the essence. Essence is the abstract idea for the understanding of a phenomenon, while existence is the actual or physical manifestation of the essence.
Bruner (1) describes the constructivist theory as a situation where an individual learns from the known to the unknown. It is based on the cognitive theory where individuals learn more as they progress in their body of knowledge. It is all about the development of knowledge and making new discoveries, something very akin to the learning process.
Based on this understanding, the issue of Iran’s nuclear weapon pursuit can be effectively analyzed. From what is known, no nation in the world that had no nuclear weapon as of the end of the World War II should start developing such a weapon. Iran lies in this group of countries. With this understanding, it is apparent that the country acts out of total defiance of the global pact, since its leaders fully understand that producing such a weapon would be putting the security of the entire world at risk. This implies that actions have to be taken in order to protect the world from the possible dangers that the country’s activities would lead the world to. With this understanding, the theory would justify a military attack to be carried out on the country. After all, it has defied every existing regulation on the issue. Though the theory looks at the kind of action that would be taken against the country, it fails to look at the suffering and the pain that innocent civilians in the country would go through.
In conclusion, this essay has looked at Iran’s pursuit of nuclear warhead as a global political issue. It has analyzed the events through the lenses of the three theories; liberalism, realism, and constructivism. The findings are as discussed above.
Benhorin, Yitzhak. “VP Debate: Nuclear Iran Worse than Mideast War.” Ynet News, 12th Oct. 2012. Web. 20th Nov. 2012, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4291133,00.html
Bruner, Jerome. “Constructivist Theory.” Instructional Design, 2012. Web. 20th Nov. 2012, http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/constructivist.html
Gauss, G. “Liberalism”’ Stanford University, 2010. Web. 20th Nov. 2012, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/
Kahl, Colin H. “Not Time to Attack Iran: Why War Should be a Last Resort.” Council on Foreign Relations, March/April 2012. Web. 20th Nov. 2012, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137031/colin-h-kahl/not-time-to-attack-iran
Miller, Alexander. “Realism.” Stanford University, 2010. Web. 20th Nov. 2012, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/